ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
1. Sam said to Carol, “Kim is going to sell me a good used car next Monday and then I’ll
deliver it to you in exchange for your computer, but I’d like to have the computer now.”
Relying on this statement, Carol delivered the computer to Sam. Sam knew Kim had no
car and would have none in the future, and he had no such arrangement with her. The
appointed time of exchange passed, and Sam failed to deliver the car to Carol. Has a
crime been committed? Discuss.
Answer: False Pretenses. Yes. Sam has committed the crime of obtaining property by false
pretenses. This crime declares it illegal for one to obtain title to property of another by
2. Sara, a lawyer, drew a deed for Robert by which Robert was to convey land to Rick. The
deed was correct in every detail. Robert examined and verbally approved it but did not
sign it. Sara then erased Rick’s name and substituted her own. Robert subsequently
signed the deed with all required legal formalities without noticing the change. Was Sara
guilty of forgery? Discuss.
Answer: Forgery. Yes. Forgery is the intentional falsification with intent to defraud, of a
3. Ann took Bonnie’s watch before Bonnie was aware of the theft. Bonnie discovered her
loss immediately and pursued Ann. Ann pointed a loaded pistol at Bonnie, who, in fear
of being shot, allowed Ann to escape. Was Ann guilty of robbery? Of any other crime?
Answer: Robbery, Larceny, Assault. Ann is not guilty of robbery. In order for conduct to
constitute a robbery it is necessary for the force or threat of force to accompany or
4. Jones and Wilson were on trial, separately, for larceny of a $10,000 bearer bond
(payable to the holder of the bond, not a named individual) issued by Brown, Inc. The
commonwealth’s evidence showed that the owner of the bond put it in an envelope
bearing his name and address and dropped it accidentally in the street; that Jones found
the envelope with the bond in it; that Jones could neither read nor write; that Jones
presented the envelope and bond to Wilson, an educated man, and asked Wilson what he
should do with it; that Wilson told Jones that the finder of lost property becomes the
owner of it; that Wilson told Jones that the bond was worth $1,000 but that the money
could be collected only at the issuer’s home office; that Jones then handed the bond to
Wilson, who redeemed it at the corporation’s home office and received $10,000; that
Wilson gave Jones $1,000 of the proceeds. What rulings?
Answer: Larceny. The question of Jones’s criminal liability deals with whether he has taken
the lost bond by a trespass from the owner’s possession. Although the owner of lost or
mislaid property has constructive ownership of the property, a finder is only held to have
5. Truck drivers for a hauling company, while loading a desk, found a $100 bill that had
fallen out of the desk. They agreed to get it exchanged for small bills and divide the
proceeds. En route to the bank, one of them changed his mind and refused to proceed
with the scheme, whereupon the other pulled a knife and demanded the bill. A police
officer intervened. What crimes have been committed?
Answer: Larceny, Robbery. This case presents a number of difficult questions. First,
regarding whether the drivers committed the crime of larceny is dependent upon whether
6. Peter, an undercover police agent, was trying to locate a laboratory where it was
believed that methamphetamine, or “speed”—a controlled substance—was being
manufactured illegally. Peter went to Mary’s home and said that he represented a large
organization that was interested in obtaining methamphetamine. Peter offered to supply
a necessary ingredient for the manufacture of the drug, which was very difficult to
obtain, in return for one-half of the drug produced. Mary agreed and processed the
chemical given to her by Peter in Peter’s presence. Later Peter returned with a search
warrant and arrested Mary. Mary was charged with various narcotics law violations.
Mary asserted the defense of entrapment. Should Mary prevail? Why?
Answer: Entrapment. The defense is not valid. If the rule advanced by Mary were adopted,
it would not help Mary, for the evidence disclosed that, although the necessary
ingredient was difficult to obtain, it was not impossible. Peter merely contributed the
7. The police obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit that contained the following
allegations: (a) Donald was seen crossing a state line on four occasions during a
five-day period and going to a particular apartment; (b) telephone records disclosed
that the apartment had two telephones; (c) Donald had a reputation as a bookmaker and
as an associate of gamblers; and (d) the FBI was informed by a “confidential reliable
informant” that Donald was conducting gambling operations from the apartment. The
affidavit did not indicate how the informant knew of this information nor did it contain
any information about the reliability of the informant. When a search was made based
on the warrant, evidence was obtained that resulted in Donald’s conviction of violating
certain gambling laws. Donald challenged the constitutionality of the search warrant.
Were Donald’s constitutional rights violated? Explain your answer.
Answer: Fourth Amendment: Search Warrants. The search warrant was not sufficiently
supported by the evidence to be valid. The fact that Donald frequented an apartment
8. A national bank was robbed by a man with a small strip of tape on each side of his face.
An indictment was returned against David. David was then arrested, and counsel was
appointed to represent him. Two weeks later, without notice to David’s lawyer, an FBI
agent arranged to have the two bank employees observe a lineup, including David and
five or six other prisoners. Each person in the lineup wore strips of tape, as had the
robber, and each was directed to repeat the words “Put the money in the bag,” as had
the robber. Both of the bank employees identified David as the robber. At David’s trial he
was again identified by the two, in the courtroom, and the prior lineup identification was
elicited on cross-examination by David’s counsel. David’s counsel moved the court
either to grant a judgment of acquittal or alternatively to strike the courtroom
identifications on the ground that the lineup had violated David’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Decision?
Answer: Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment (right to counsel).
No, as to the Fifth Amendment privilege. Neither the lineup itself, nor anything that
David was required to do in the lineup violated David’s privilege against
self-incrimination. There is no question of the admissibility into evidence of anything
9. Waronek owned and operated a trucking rig, transporting goods for L.T.L. Perishables,
Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota. He accepted an offer to haul a trailer load of beef from
Illini Beef Packers, Inc., in Joslin, Illinois, to Midtown Packing Company in New York
City. After his truck was loaded with ninety-five forequarters and ninety-five
hindquarters of beef in Joslin, Waronek drove north to his home in Watertown,
Wisconsin, rather than east to New York. While in Watertown, he asked employees of the
Royal Meat Company to butcher and prepare four hindquarters of beef—two for himself
and two for his friends. He also offered to sell ten hindquarters to one employee of the
company at an alarmingly reduced rate. The suspicious employee contacted the
authorities, who told him to proceed with the deal. When Waronek arrived in New York
with his load short, Waronek telephoned L.T.L. Perishables in St. Paul. He notified them
“that he was short the hindquarters, that he knew where the beef went, and that he
would make good on it out of future settlements.” L.T.L. told him to contact the New
York police but he failed to do so. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and indicted for the embezzlement of goods moving in interstate
commerce. Explain whether Waronek was guilty of the crime of embezzlement.
Answer: Larceny/Embezzlement. Waronek was guilty of embezzlement. Waronek was
entrusted with possession of the hindquarters under a contract of carriage, and he took
10. Four separate cases involving similar fact situations were consolidated because they
presented the same constitutional question. In each case, police officers, detectives, or
prosecuting attorneys took a defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police
station to obtain a confession. In none of these cases did the officials fully and effectively
advise the defendant of his rights at the outset of the interrogation. The interrogations
produced oral admissions of guilt from each defendant, as well as signed statements
from three of them, which were used to convict them at their trials. The defendants
appealed, arguing that the officials should have warned them of their constitutional
rights and the consequences of waiving them before the questioning began. It was
contended that to permit any statements obtained without such a warning violated their
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Were the defendants’
constitutional rights violated? Discuss.
Answer: Fifth Amendment. Judgment for defendants. The long-standing Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination applies to police interrogations of defendants in
custody as well as in the courtroom. It guarantees the accused “the right to remain silent
11. Officer Cyril Rombach of the Burbank Police Department, an experienced and
well-trained narcotics officer, applied for a warrant to search several residences and
automobiles for cocaine, methaqualone, and other narcotics. Rombach supported his
application with information given to another police officer by a confidential informant
of unproven reliability. He also based the warrant application on his own observations
made during an extensive investigation: known drug offenders visiting the residences
and leaving with small packages as well as a suspicious trip to Miami by two of the
suspects. A state superior court judge in good faith issued a search warrant to Rombach
based on this information. Rombach’s searches netted large quantities of drugs and
other evidence, which produced indictments of several suspects on charges of
conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. The defendants moved to exclude the
evidence on the grounds that the search warrant was defective in that Rombach had
failed to establish the informant’s credibility and that the information provided by the
informant about the suspect’s criminal activity was fatally stale. Explain whether the
evidence should be excluded.
Answer: Fourth Amendment. No. Judgment for the prosecution. The Fourth Amendment
contains no express provision mandating the exclusion of evidence that is obtained by an
12. Raymond Johnson snatched a purse that had been left in an unattended car at a gas
station. The purse contained both money and a firearm. Johnson was convicted for the
crimes of grand theft of property (cash and payroll check) and grand theft of a firearm.
Johnson appealed, arguing that this conviction is a double jeopardy violation in that it
constitutes multiple convictions for a single act. Should he be convicted of two separate
crimes for stealing the purse?
Answer: Essential Elements of a Crime. No; Johnson cannot be separately convicted for
grand theft of property and grand theft of a firearm. The question presented is whether a
defendant may be separately convicted and sentenced for grand theft of cash and grand
ANSWERS TO “TAKING SIDES” PROBLEMS
Olivo was in the hardware area of a department store. A security guard saw him look
around, take a set of wrenches, and conceal it in his clothing. Olivo looked around once
more and proceeded toward an exit, passing several cash registers. The guard stopped him
short of the exit.
(a) What argument would support the prosecutor in finding Olivo guilty of larceny?
(b) What argument would you make as Olivio’s defense counsel for finding him not
guilty of larceny?
(c) Which side’s argument do you find most convincing? Explain.
ANSWER:
(a) A shoplifter need not leave the store to be guilty of larceny. The modern definition of
larceny aims to protect individual property rights. If a shopper exercises dominion
and control over merchandise wholly inconsistent with the owner’s continued rights
